Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must [#permalink]
19 Jul 2004, 07:25
100% (02:27) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
131. To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. If a person practices a musical instrument for three hours each day, they will eventually become expert on that instrument. Therefore, if a person is an expert on a musical instrument, that person must have practiced for at least three hours each day.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?
(A) The conclusion fails to take into account that people who practice for three hours every day might not yet have reached a degree of proficiency that everyone would consider expert.
(B) The conclusion fails to take into account that practicing for less than three hours each day may be enough for some people to become experts.
(C) the conclusion fails to take into account that if a person has not practiced for at least three hours a day, the person has not become an expert.
(D) The conclusion fails to take into account that three consecutive hours of daily practice is not recommended by all music teachers.
(E) The conclusion fails to take into account that few people have the spare time necessary to devote three hours daily to practice.
"everyone would consider expert" is very demanding statement. Even if you practice of 24 hours a day you may not be an expert according to someone. "at least three hours" establishes a criteria for becoming an expert. But what if you can be an expert if you practce for 30 minutes. That is what is summarized in B.
I eliminated A because of the subjective nature of the statement.
The argument clearly states that one will become an expert if he practices music for 3hrs. This means that expert based on accepted criteria.
A attempts to bring in another parameter of "expert according to who?" This is out of scope of the argument (according to me )
See, the premise cites an one-way causual relationship: "3 hours practice" ---> "become expert". The conclusion states a two - way causual relationship "3 hours practice" <---> "become expert" ---> flaw.
"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"